Which one of the 3 mentioned (BBC, Sky and CNN) would get the most worldwide viewers?
I would image it would be 1 - CNN, 2 BBC World 3 Sky News
as Sky news is avalible in most places but not USA.
Sky claim they have 80 million views, is this true or is it the number of people who have satellite equipment capable of picking up Sky around the world?
AL
alekf
Ste posted:
Which one of the 3 mentioned (BBC, Sky and CNN) would get the most worldwide viewers?
I would image it would be 1 - CNN, 2 BBC World 3 Sky News
as Sky news is avalible in most places but not USA.
Sky claim they have 80 million views, is this true or is it the number of people who have satellite equipment capable of picking up Sky around the world?
In terms of TV I think that's true -- CNN › BBC World › Sky News -- but the last two might be switched
in terms of complete coverage it would be BBC, CNN, and then Sky -- The BBC World Service (radio) reaches more people than CNN does on TV I think. In terms of name recognition most people worldwide know about CNN and the BBC -- maybe not so much Sky, especially in 'third-world' countries. And most Americans know about the BBC and of course CNN; but not really Sky.
The BBC is certainly the most well known broadcaster around the world. But only because of the World Service, not BBC World.
Viewing figures are pretty strange. CNN and Sky are miles ahead of World in Europe, but I'm not sure about the rest of the world. I'd guess that it'd run to CNN > BBC > Sky, and that would follow the potential audience figures too.
World Service is the broadcasting service with the largest potential reach anywhere on the planet - far far ahead of CNN International in terms of who can recieve it, and where.
Out of the three - indeed, as I write this Sky are doing a report on the World Service - you'd find the BBC would be the most well known, followed by CNN and then Sky. The US 'big three' networks wouldn't be that well known. NBC would probably be the most recognised out of the three, probably because it operates CNBC. Voice Of America is also pretty well thought of.
In the third world you'd find that probably few people have heard of CNN, because obviously satellite services aren't that readily available. However, the World Service does broadcast freely in these areas and so many will only have heard of the BBC.
Oh and 80 million is the number of potential viewers Sky has, ie the ones that can watch it if they want to.
I'd say that Sky is known about in the USA - although I know some Brits who find the concept of Sky News challenging. It helps Sky to have links with Fox. Fox joining them overnight will increase their recognition in the USA, and Fox have been using their reports for quite some time now.
It's funny really. Fox try to go it alone, but it seems that whenever a major international story breaks they always look to Sky for help. Bless 'em.
I notice that on the report about the BBC World service on Sky when they are talking about Tony Blairs speech on the language spoken in Afganistan version, they call it World Service and not BBC World Service.
I don't know if you've seen it but there is a quote in the Radio Times article about 'covering the war' from John Simpson in which he talks about being in the middle of a riot and still in the middle of it he heard chants of Simpson and Simpsons World when he was spotted. Suppose it shows the power of BBC World ... I know that during Kosovo some fleeing the country would only talk to BBC World (that's how the BBC got some video of the atrocities) .... because that's what they watched for an unbiased view of what was happening.
It ofcourse applies on a bigger scale to BBC World Service.
ED
EDTV
I've been watching SkyNews over the internet lately (OMG! ) and they're coverage hasn't been what I had anticipated. I would think that SkyNews would have, in lack of better words, suckier coverage than BBC or CNN, but in fact they had exclusive (I dunno how exclusive) footage of food drops from a U.S. warplane.
This coming from a
BBC NEWS FAN
BTW, this thread has SURPASSES the Look North/Calendar Thread... amazing.
BBC World will not doubt increase in strength, but if we're talking about Kosovo the BBC, and CNN to an extent, were pretty damn awful. It's just a shame this war isn't a great war for the TV networks to cover.
The BBC would undoubtably love to get to a stage where they could have lots of little mini TV networks. CNN Turk, CNN +, CNN D, being examples. But that all costs money and the BBC can't afford that at the moment.
EDTV, you should trust the words of the c@t. I told you they were good
I thought that two 50-something women cat-fighting in a hotel foyer - especially when they WORK there - on daytime TV has to be a TV first, so that's why the two Crossie images are there. I also had Jake the Snake throwing his toys out of his pram also but lost it.
TO
Todd
Did anyone see the logo when sky news on fox cut to a break. Iit had a sky-blue globe with the sky news ident in it.
ED
EDTV
I'm not knocking on anyone here who's brought screenshots. I think they're great.
But I'm wondering... is anyone getting tired of all this news coverage about this war on TV? Frankly, I'm at the same level of tiredness as when the attacks happened on 9-11-00.
I really wished everyone can cover news stories that don't relate to this matter.
) and they're coverage hasn't been what I had anticipated. I would think that SkyNews would have, in lack of better words, suckier coverage than BBC or CNN, but in fact they had exclusive (I dunno how exclusive) footage of food drops from a U.S. warplane.
